their names, their property, and their offspring, will be lost to our church. In a few more years, the present incumbents of these pulpits will be no more; and however useful they may have been in their personal ministry, they cannot control the succession. That is in other hands, and will be much more likely to take its complexion from the living than from the dead; from the body in which they have left their churches, than from the pastor's remembered wishes.* In whatever light, then, this policy is examined, whether with reference to the past or the present, its character or tendency, it but strengthens our position-that the true remedy against error, is the maintainance of the gospel in separate organizations; and that the expectation of success, in any other way, will invariably end in disappointment. The churches here have listened to one side of the question only. We never have been permitted to plead our cause before them, and many of them, therefore, are made to believe themselves to be in the very body by which they were originally organized. Did they know that they were not; that they had been kept in the dark by interested individuals; had, without a full and sufficient examination of the question, without a fair and impartial presentation of it in all its aspects, been drawn off into a new organization; an organization scarcely ten years old; an organization changed in its forms, and changed in its doctrines; there are many *I little expected when this was penned, that before it would be in type, my best friend, and most reliable counselor, the Rev. NORRIS BULL, D. D. would be no more. His piety, integrity, perseverance, skill, and courage; his great intellectual endowments, and his remarkable power over deliberative assemblies, qualified him preeminently for success in the difficult circumstances in which he was placed. All eyes were turned toward him as the leader of a forlorn hope in the Synod of Genesee. And when one by one his friends forsook him, because they deemed the contest in which he was engaged, hopeless, and yet saw him almost alone and with unbroken resolution, still battling with his destiny, they could not but admire, and sometimes hope for partial success from his singular perseverence. But now that he rests from his labors, every expectation of reforming even a single Presbytery, is buried with him.' decided Presbyterians who would not long remain where they are, but would avail themselves of the earliest favorable opportunity of carrying out the provisions of the act of 1837, and would resume their connection with our church. I know men who tremble in their places lest the truth should be known on this subject, whose whole efforts are directed to suppress inquiry by scandalous imputations, or by bringing up false issues, and who look upon a fair discussion as calculated to benefit any but themselves. If, however, our cause is to be defended by such weapons, it shall not be by our hands. It is of God, and it will stand. If it is not of Him, let it perish; it is not worth preserving. CHAPTER II. DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OLD AND NEW SCHOOL PRESBYTERIANS. Sufferings of Christ-The New School deny their penal nature-They were penal. The published works of leading divines, give character to their respective communions. The published works of Arius and Arminius, not the creeds which they respectively subscribed, and which were sufficiently sound, but their own expositions of their creed, are the sources to which we resort to ascertain their opinions and those of their followers. And in like manner, not the creed alone of the New School `body, but their explanations of that creed as contained in the widely circulated writings of their leading and influential divines, are another and an ultimate criterion, to which we must resort to ascertain what is really their denominational theology. To shrink from this most reasonable test, or to attempt to evade it by denying its correctness, is not only sus picious, but prima facie evidence of conscious weakness and guilt. It is in effect to resolve society into its original and independent elements, and to destroy the very principle of associated responsibility. The declaration of independency on the part of the Rochester Presbytery, so long as it is a mere declaration, can' form no exception in their favor. If it had been carried out; if they had broken connection with the New School body, and formed an organization under their own control, they would have secured our confidence. But for them to affirm that they are independent, and not responsible for the New School errors, and at the same time to remain as they do in the New School connection, is, to say the softest thing we can of it, disingenuous and calculated to deceive. Were not the members of the Rochester Presbytery generally present at the late session of their Synod, and did they not hear the Moderator,* in his Synodical Sermon, distinctly, solemnly, and with emphasis, declare that "Jesus Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law nor any part of it?" And what has that Presbytery done, and what has that Synod done, to rebuke this bold denial of the Gospel? And can these brethren be ignorant of the tolerated Pelagian and Socinian errors which infest the whole body? Surely the claim to orthodoxy and independency under such circumstances, is a claim which few can respect but themselves. If I could possibly understand their position as they appear to understand it, I should be happy to make an exception in their favor; but as it is, they must be held to the proposed test in common with the rest of their brethren. Dr. Beman, whose work on the Atonement, is hailed by the last Moderator of the New School General Assembly, Dr. Cox, "with devout salutation, commendation, and benediction," maintains that Christ did not endure the penalty of the law; that his sufferings were in no sense penal; whereas the Scriptures affirm that the "chastisement or punishment of our peace was upon Him;" that the "Lord did lay upon Him the iniquity of us all;" Isaiah 53.—and that "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." Galatians iii. 13. "That Jesus Christ did not die in the strict and literal sense, as the substitute of His people, or in the room of those * Rev. Wm. F. Curry. * who will finally be saved, may be established beyond all reasonable doubt-beyond all enlightened controversy." *** "The law can have no penal demand except against the offender. With a substitute it has no concern; and though a thousand substitutes should die, the law in itself considered, and left to its own natural operation, would have the same demand on the transgressor which it always had. This claim can never be invalidated. This penal demand can never be extinguished." * * "The penalty of the law, strictly speaking, was not inflicted at all." * * "The whole legal system has been suspended, at least, for the present, in order to make way for the operation of one of a different character." (Dr. Beman on Atonement, pp. 96. 133.) Whereas, the Scriptures affirm that it is not suspended at all; that "till Heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled;" Math. v. 18.-and that Christ who "was made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him;" 2. Cor. v. 21.-" is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." Rom. x. 4. "He hath magnified the law and made it honorable." Isa. xlii. 21. Dr. Beman can see no point in Dr. Priestley's objections against the doctrine of atonement, as against his own views, for he fully agrees with Dr. Priestly, that there could be no mercy in acquitting the guilty, when justice had already been fully satisfied by a substitute. (See Beman on the Atonement, p. 138.) The error of Dr. Beman, and his Unitarian friend, must be obvious to the most ordinary capacity. It assumes that satisfaction, even though it proceed from the offended party himself, would be no exhibition of mercy to the offender. If this satisfaction, however, had been made by some being extraneous to the law giver, the objection might have force, but proceeding as it does from the bosom of the |